Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar Talreja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
1 MCRC-19697-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19697 of 2023
SAGAR TALREJA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Dembla and Shri Dinesh Rawat, Learned Counsel for petitioners.
Shri Shashikant Bhati- Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1- State.
None for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by petitioners
seeking quashment of FIR No.73 of 2016 registered at PS Juni Indore, for offence
punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 389, 34, 109, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section
3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act, 1939 as well as all as Final Report and other
consequential criminal proceedings arising out of said Crime.
Facts giving rise to present petition in short are that respondent No.2 Mukesh
was admitted to Suyog Hospital in an unconscious state in regard to attempt to commit
suicide by inhailing/consuming sleeping pills Alphrazoram kept in his home. On receipt
of information from the Hospital, Rojnamcha Sanha No.28 of 2016 was recorded and
matter was enquired. As per statement of Mukesh recorded on 16-02-2016 he alleged
that he was in need of money. He took a loan of Rs. 5 lac from Prakash Talreaj at the
rate of 4% interest per annum but Prakash Talreja was demanding interest @ 10% per
annum. When complainant told him that the rate of interest is too much, then Prakash,
Akash, and Sagar told him that they would sanction the loan against his house. When
he refused their offer, then Praksh, Akash and Sagar gave him threat if he would not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
2 MCRC-19697-2023
repay the amount with rate of interest, then they would falsely implicate him in a false
case. They started to pressurize him. Thereafter complainant sold his house to them on
two crore forty one lack.Prakash deposited Rs. 20 lac in the shape of cheque in his
account. When complainant demanded the remaining amount from then, they refused to
do so and asked to give his cheque and passbook. and gave threatening to him that they
would implicate him in a false case and will send him in jail and took his cheque and
passbook. On 14-02-2026, when the complainant went to their house for taking
remaining amount, Prkash, Akash and Sagar started to abuse him and gave him
beating. On such allegations, FIR vide Crime No.73 of 2016 was registered at PS Juni
Indore for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 389, 34 of IPC and Section
3/4 of Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act, 1939 against Prakash Talreja, Akash
Talreja (herein petitioners No.1 and 2) and Sagar. MLC of Mukesh was conducted.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Relevant seizure memo was prepared. After
completion of investigation and other formalities, Final Report was submitted by police
on 14-04-2016 under Section 173 of CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 323,
294, 384, 389,34, 109, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act
against petitioners Prakash, Akash and co-accused Sagar and Ishwari wife of
Mulchand. Hence, this petition.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the case. If the contents of FIR are taken on its face value, prima facie no
offence is made out against the petitioners. The allegations made in the FIR do not
disclose any cognizable offence. The criminal proceedings is based on mala fide
intention and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The petitioners had no
connection with the alleged crime.FIR was registered after two days of the incident. It
is further contended that the spot map shows 99 Gopal Bag, Indore, the residence of
respondent where no evidence has been produced on behalf of prosecution in this
regard. It is further contended on behalf of petitioners that the complainant is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
3 MCRC-19697-2023
appearing before the Trial Court concerned despite several warrants having been issued
against him. He is deliberately avoiding service to protract litigation against the
petitioners. The petitioners No.1 Sagar Talreja and petitioner No.2 Akash Talreja at
the time of incident were students. Now petitioner No.1 is an Engineer and petitioner
No.2 Akash Talereja is an Interior Designer. Because of false implication the
petitioners are facing trial and suffering hard. Their life and bright future have become
spoiled.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
quashment of FIR/charge sheet and has submitted that there are specific allegations in
the FIR duly supported by witnesses. After collecting sufficient material, police has
filed Final Repor against the petitioners and others for commission offences as
mentioned above. Hence, at this stage, F.I.R/charge sheet cannot be quashed. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Before considering the rival contention put forth by learned counsel for the
parties, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023/ Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported
in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :-
“27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two
provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of
jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the
principles with reference to which the courts should exercise
such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently
impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objectiveanalysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of
the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
4 MCRC-19697-2023
particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the
case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court
under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care
and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms
of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever
reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal
offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed forconsidering whether the case
would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing
of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to
prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that
might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High
Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution
in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the
provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or
institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
5 MCRC-19697-2023
intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the
right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the
offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an
oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the
record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and
constitute a “civil wrong” with no “element of criminality” and does not
satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified
in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon
the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe
is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to
determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case
would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the
allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if
so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-
fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating
agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to
an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that
a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or
under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external
materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
6 MCRC-19697-2023
was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to
consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be
more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing
at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a
view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is
an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the
Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within
its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that
it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice
favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of
which alone, the courts exist. [Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v.Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan
Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.
Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of
U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan
Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v.
State of Bihar; M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of
Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
7 MCRC-19697-2023
27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably
cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to
exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an
offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not
hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two
ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
28. At this stage, we may also notice that the principle stated by this Court in
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia was reconsidered and explained in two subsequent
judgments of this Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and M.N. Damani v. S.K.
Sinha. In the subsequent judgment, the Court held that, that judgment did not declare a
law of universal application and what was the principle relating to disputes involving
cases of a predominantly civil nature with or without criminal intent.”
Adverting to the facts of present case, it is apparent that as per prosecution,
allegations against petitioners- accused regarding sale transaction of complainant’s
house at 99, Gopal Bag Colony, Indore and agricultural land at Ashta resulted in
causing him hurt and of using obscene acts by accused, exhortation and creating fear of
accusation of offence. As per MLC report , ingestion of unknown substance, having
dull drowsiness, with mild frowth from mouth was found. Respondent was admitted in
unconscious state who attempted to commit suicide by inhailing/consuming sleeping
pills i.e. Anzilum 0.5 mg (Alprazolam) tablets. Prima facie, the allegation made against
the present applicant and other co-accused makes out cognizable offence and
contentions of the petitioners that the criminal proceedings is based on mala fide
intention and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, is a question of fact which
can be decided only after recording of evidence of witnesses. When the investigation by
the police is already complete, the Court should not go into the merits of allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
8 MCRC-19697-2023
either in FIR or Charge sheet. This court while exercising its power under section
482 of Cr.P.C cannot decide the correctness and genuineness of the allegations as the
same can be decided only after recording of the evidence of witnesses. So far as the
contention of the petitioners that the complainant and his witnesses are not turning up
for recording the statement is concerned, it is an obligatory on the part of the Trial
Court to proceed in the trial in accordance with law.
In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it
cannot delve into disputed questions of fact and examine the probable defence taken by
petitioners in the present petition while invoking the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits,
is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 13-12-2024
18:10:08